Freedom in liberalism is usually defined as “freedom to the extent that it does not threaten the freedom of others,” but this definition is not complete. Our freedoms come in many forms, including physical and psychological freedom. The problem is that when a woman expresses her physical freedom by wearing a bikini, that choice may directly affect the psychological freedom of the men around her.
Men never choose to see a woman’s body, which may arouse their sexual instincts. But when they see many women in provocative clothing in public, these men cannot protect themselves from its effects. Freud said that repressing sexual feelings can lead to psychological damage. So not only does this kind of sexual appearance affect men without permission, it can also damage their mental health. And it’s not just about bikinis; other provocative clothing has the same effect.
Now the question is: Should a woman’s freedom to choose what to wear, even if it hurts others, be more important? This question raises a kind of contradiction in the concept of freedom of dress. It seems that the individual freedom that liberalism talks about doesn’t really make sense.
This is not just about women. Many men cannot help but be aroused when they see a woman’s body, especially her breasts. It is a natural and uncontrollable reaction, something that men have no control over. Therefore, their psychological freedom is also affected. In choosing to wear clothing, women may unconsciously destroy the mental freedom of others, even if the choice of clothing is their own.
Now, if the government wants to make laws about what people should wear, who should decide where the boundaries are? For example, why is nudity completely forbidden, but wearing a bikini, which is not much different, is not a problem? Who should determine where the boundaries should be drawn? And most importantly, how should we determine what is acceptable?
In a secular state, the issue becomes even more complicated. Suppose lawmakers want to enact a law requiring individuals to cover themselves at a minimum. How should this decision be made fairly? If the decision is based on the opinion of the majority of the people, in a country where the majority is Muslim, the majority might want to impose Islamic covering on others. But if the majority is not the criterion, what principles should be followed? Without a clear principle, how can we define the minimum acceptable covering?
This is where culture and religion come in. Culture and religion can naturally define the boundaries of acceptable covering without the need for strict laws. In this way, societies can avoid burdensome legal restrictions and instead allow cultural norms to guide individuals’ choices.
In countries like the United States and Iran, both try to prevent harm to individuals with their laws, but in different ways. In the United States, men do not have the freedom to choose to avoid sexual arousal in public. In Iran, women are not allowed to wear bikinis. Both countries think their laws protect people, but in both countries, there are groups that oppose current policies and demand change.
So the real question is, should we ban bikinis and other provocative clothing because they may cause harm to others? Should there be complete freedom in clothing, and let culture and religion set the limits? Is the definition of freedom in liberalism really complete, or is it lacking something?
If freedom means that everyone has the right to do anything as long as it does not harm others, isn’t the mental arousal that comes from looking at other people’s bodies also a form of harm? If mental arousal is not harm, then why is nudity prohibited, but sexualized clothing like bikinis or other provocative clothing is not equally problematic? In a rational society, how and with what logic should the coverage limit be determined? Should it be based on harm to others? According to social norms? Based on efficiency? Or something else?
English is my second language so I used Google Translate.